One thing that I always struggle with is adding horizontal scroll to tables on responsive phone layouts. I know it involves overflow, but for some reason I always make the solution way more complicated than it needs to be.

You don’t need a container element. All you need to do is add these two CSS properties to your tables:

table {
display: block;
overflow-x: auto;
}

The StackOverflow post that illuminated the answer also has you add white-space: nowrap; but that can be problematic if your cells have enough text that they need to wrap. I found a better solution was to set a minimum width on cells:

th, td {
min-width: 120px;
}

You may want to experiment on any given site to see what min-width works best.

I’m working on a site right now that has a fixed, full-bleed (i.e. background-size: cover) background image on the <body>. The content flows over it, mostly obscuring it completely, but the background is occasionally revealed in the spaces between content blocks. Some blocks have a semi-transparent background so you can see the fixed background as if through frosted glass.

It’s a cool effect, but it really, really does not want to play nicely on mobile. Various odd things happen on both Android and iOS, and they are completely different.

Quick side note: Yes, the background image is a JPEG. Normally I only use PNG or SVG images in UI elements, but I had good reason to use JPEG here: even though it’s only two colors (with some in-between colors due to antialiasing), the pattern in the background is incredibly complex, and a JPEG version of the file is about 1/5 the size of the PNG. And since it’s an illustration, I tried making an SVG version first, but the pattern is so large that the SVG was about 2 MB! So JPEG it is… which may be a factor in the issue I’m having on Android, but I haven’t tested a PNG version of the image to verify that.

iOS Problems

I’m an iPhone user, so I mainly test responsive sites on iOS. I do own an Android phone (a Motorola Moto E, which I highly recommend as a cheap-but-decent Android phone for testing), but I generally only break it out during the final round of browser testing prior to launching a site.

The issues with background images on iOS are well-known to most web developers. iOS has a number of rather arbitrary seeming limitations imposed upon the Mobile Safari browsing experience, generally for one of three reasons: 1) performance, 2) touch interface usability, 3) the whims of the ghost of Steve Jobs. In the case of background images, background-attachment is not supported. I’m not really sure how this would impact either (1) or (2) — although I think with the early underpowered iPhone generations, it did impact performance — so I think we’re dealing mostly with (3) here. At any rate, because you can’t have an attached background on iOS, I added this in my media queries:

Another quick side note: Why is my phone break point at 782 pixels, you ask? Because that’s where WordPress has its break point for the admin interface. I’m not exactly sure why the WP team chose that number, but why fight it?

Besides the background attachment, there’s also the issue that background-size: cover on a phone is going to make the background image huuuuuuuuuge because it’s scaling it to fit the height of the page content, not the screen size. I initially solved that with background-size: 100%;, since we’re now allowing the background to repeat. As you’ll see, however, that led to problems on Android, so I ended up scrapping it.

Android Problems

I opened the page in Android, and, although the background image was displaying as I expected in terms of size and attachment, it looked… awful. The original source image I am working with is a generous 2400 x 1857 pixels, enough to look reasonably sharp on most displays, even at high resolution. And it looks great on my Mac, great on my iPhone. But on the Android phone it was splotchy and low-res looking… like it had been reduced to 200 pixels and then upscaled (which is maybe what Android is doing, somehow… and here is where I’m wondering if the image being a JPEG is a factor, but that’s just a stab in the dark).

I tried a number of possible solutions, the most obvious being to set exact pixel dimensions for the image. I tried 1200 x 929, basically a “x2” size for high-res devices. Still looked like crap. I even tried setting it to 2400 x 1857, the actual dimensions of the image, and it looked like crap… and I don’t mean pixel-doubled, which is what it actually should be; I mean the same splotchy weirdness I had been seeing at other sizes.

Yet another quick side note: Here I am not placing this inside a media query. We don’t want to only fix this issue on phone screens. Granted, the iOS solution above needs to work on iPads, too… something I haven’t really solved here. I’m workin’ on it!

This change for Android worked perfectly! By this point I had, temporarily at least, removed the iOS workarounds I mentioned above, so on Android the background image was not only perfectly scaled to the browser window, looking sharp and clean, but it was even fixed-position, just like on desktop!

But… the image was back to being huuuuuuuuuge on iOS. Apparently this html trick for Android does absolutely nothing on iOS, so you’re left trying to find another solution that won’t simultaneously break Android.

An uneasy compromise

It’s not perfect, but I found that if I put both of these tricks together, everything works… the only thing we lose is the fixed-position treatment that Android allows but iOS does not. But the background looks great on both platforms and most importantly, behaves consistently on both.

As noted above, this doesn’t really address iPads. A simple solution would be to change the media query to @media screen and (max-width: 1024px), but a) that doesn’t account for the larger iPad Pro and b) it also means a desktop display will lose the proper background effect if the window is smaller than that size. I don’t really have a solution; an adaptive treatment using either server-side or JavaScript-based browser detection would be a consideration, but I don’t really like resorting to that sort of thing for something as basic as this.

It doesn’t help that I recently gave my iPad to my daughter so I don’t currently have a tablet of any kind for testing. That’s about to change as I have a newly ordered Kindle Fire arriving today, but of course that’s not going to give me the answer for an iPad. I can try Responsive Design Mode in desktop Safari, but that’s not always a perfect representation of the quirks of an actual mobile device.

Still… this combined solution for phones is an improvement over the default behavior in both cases.

As a developer, I am somewhat conservative. I believe strongly in the importance of web standards, and I am reluctant to be an early adopter of any new techniques or, even worse, non-standard workarounds for limitations in existing standards. I’d rather live with the limitations until a proper standard — or at least a de facto standard — takes hold.

One of the latest issues to challenge my approach has been responsive images. I’ve settled into a pattern of going with “1.5x” quality images, trying to strike a balance between quality on large high-res displays and a reasonable file size. But it really doesn’t do either very well.

There have been a couple of competing proposals for handling responsive image sets, and I am pleased to see the srcset attribute begin to emerge as the winner. The biggest plus it has for me is that it degrades gracefully for older browsers that don’t support it.

Well, before I had even finished reading the article I started thinking about how I could leverage the build-in image sizing mechanism in WordPress to use srcset. I haven’t looked around — I’m sure someone else has already created a plugin that perfectly nails what I am attempting to do here. And, to be honest, I haven’t extensively tested this code yet, although I did drop it into a site I’m currently working on, just to be sure it doesn’t throw a fatal error and that it actually does render the HTML <img> tag as advertised.

The function takes three input parameters. An attachment ID, a default size (for the old school src attribute), and a boolean for whether to echo the output or just return it.

First, we get the attachment metadata and put it into $image. You can see more about what the wp_get_attachment_metadata() function does here.

Next, we set up the $upload_url variable to be the full base URL to the WordPress uploads directory. That’s because the metadata output only includes the filename of each sized image, not its full URL.

Then we loop through all of the sizes in the metadata output, generating a series of strings containing the image URL and its width, for use in the srcset attribute. We put these into an array because we need to manipulate the list a bit: we need to sort it so the largest images come first, and then later we need to implode() this into a comma-separated string.

Of course we also need the image’s alt text, so we grab that with get_post_meta() which you can read more about here.

Finally, assuming we actually have some size data, we build the <img> tag, complete with srcset attribute! Then we either echo or return it, as determined by the $echo input parameter.

Something else I’d like to try with this is taking it a step further by adding a filter that processes page content, looking for <img> tags, and automatically inserts the appropriate srcset attribute.

There you have it. I welcome anyone who’s reading this to give the function a try in your WordPress site, and let me know how it goes!

With exactly three posts here all summer, the last being nearly two months ago, it might be reasonable to assume this blog had been abandoned. Wrong! I have simply been so busy, building so many responsive websites, that I haven’t had time to gather my thoughts to share in anything longer than 140-character bursts.

“‘Responsive’ websites?” you say, and I hear the internal quotation marks in your voice. Yes. If you don’t know what responsive web design is… well, let’s be honest. You found this post, if you found it at all, when you googled “responsive web design” so I suspect you have at least a passing familiarity with the term. So let’s get started.

(Actually, before we get started, a quick note: astute observers may… um… observe that I wrote a seemingly identical post to this one back in June. And yes, that’s right. But after a summer immersed in this stuff, rather than continuing from there with “part two” it felt better to start over from the beginning with a more in-depth introduction.)

Getting Started, or, rather: How I Got Started

I’ve owned an iPhone for about 4 1/2 years now, and one of the first things I noticed shortly after it became the hottest thing around was that everyone was suddenly creating mobile websites. There were even services created just to help you convert your website into a mobile website. But it was always a separate experience (usually with a domain name that started with m.) and invariably an inferior one.

A lot of websites still do that, and it still sucks. It’s two separate websites, which is bad for users — often content doesn’t make it to the mobile site, and when that happens there’s no easy way to get to it on the desktop version — and it’s bad for site owners — double (or more) the work.

But about a year ago I started to notice a new approach, one that didn’t require two separate websites, and one that, owing partly to how quickly it caught on with the superstars of web design, usually yielded much better looking results: responsive web design (which I will henceforth lazily refer to as RWD). RWD uses CSS3 media queries to detect the window/screen size the page is displayed on, and changes the layout of the page to suit the screen. On the fly. Same page. Same CSS.

So there is no mobile site, no desktop site. There’s just the site. And it looks great on any screen.

In theory.

Of course, this solution is not perfect. But it is better in so many ways — standards compliant, future-proof, user-friendly, easy to maintain — that it is clearly the optimal solution for mobile websites today.

Getting Started (you, this time)

Before you delve into RWD, there are a couple of things you need to know: 1) HTML5 and 2) CSS3. More specifically, you need to embrace the concept of semantic HTML fully, as a well-structured HTML document is essential to the responsive approach.

I assume if you’re thinking about RWD, you’ve long since abandoned table-based layouts, and you probably don’t even remember the <font> tag existed, right? Right. But for RWD to work well you need full separation of your visual design from your document structure.

My personal preference is to take this to an extreme: I never even use <img> tags except in body content. All visual elements of the layout are contained in my CSS, even logos, and I avoid using images wherever possible. By taking full advantage of the visual effects offered by CSS3, and accepting “graceful degradation” in older browsers (or, in reverse, “progressive enhancement” in newer ones) — a topic we’ll get to in a bit — you can create a lean, well-structured site that is ripe for the responsive treatment.

Building Blocks

Nothing starts from nothing. (Whoa, that’s heavy.) And certainly a responsive website doesn’t (or generally shouldn’t) start from scratch. There are three building blocks that I now include in every site I build out:

Created by CSS guru Eric Meyer, reset.css is a handy little file that removes all styling, which can vary between browsers, from all HTML elements, allowing you to “reset” the design and start with a clean slate. Just remember that it means you’re going to have to redefine everything — I guarantee your CSS file will eventually contain strong { font-weight: bold; } and em { font-style: italic; } but that’s the price you pay for complete control.

Developed (or at least maintained and expanded upon) by Remy Sharp, the purpose of html5shiv.js is to enable support for new HTML5 elements in older, but still widely used, non-HTML5 browsers like Internet Explorer 8 and earlier. You don’t have to use the new tags like <article> and <nav> to do RWD, but it’s fun, and feels like the future.

There are a handful of popular JavaScript libraries out there whose goals are generally to 1) standardize inconsistent JavaScript across browsers, and 2) make working with the DOM easier, so you can do cool, standards-compliant, cross-browser compatible animations and interactivity with just a line or two of code. jQuery is arguably the most popular of these, and is my personal favorite. Again, this is not strictly required for RWD, but I use it all the time, and often in ways that enhance the capabilities of my responsive layouts. (One specific example: it’s great as a foundation for resizing complex elements like slideshows… of course, for that matter, it’s great for making the slideshows in the first place.)

Finding Your Break(ing) Point(s)

The grand vision of pure RWD is a fully fluid layout that scales dynamically to any screen size, and a grand vision it is indeed. But we are living in an imperfect world, with many factors to consider.

In my case, I typically work with outside designers. Designers who appreciate and support RWD but are not immersed in its intricacies like I am. And I don’t want them to have to be. So as a hybrid developer-designer, I make use of my somewhat unusual but not especially unique skill set to handle the responsive adaptations for them. They just deliver a “regular” web design to me, I build that out, and then I adapt and scale and shift things around as needed for the smaller screen sizes, doing my best to stay true to the spirit of the original design.

There are two keys to making this approach work:

Get the designs in Illustrator format, not Photoshop. (No, seriously. You’ll find out why in a bit.)

Be prepared to start thinking about break points and accept that a perfectly fluid layout is not in your immediate future.

To understand break points, you need to understand common screen dimensions. You also need to understand the importance of margins to an aesthetically pleasing layout.

For years the target screen size for web design has been 1024×768 which, delightfully, is also the effective resolution of the iPad. (Yes, the newer iPads have a high-resolution “Retina Display” which is 2048×1536, but CSS pixel measurements are “pixel-doubled” on these displays, so you don’t really need to think about high-res too much, except when it comes to images, and we’ll discuss that in a minute.)

So, we can (still) start with 1024×768. But that doesn’t mean your design should be 1024 pixels wide. You need margins, both for stuff like window “chrome” (borders, scrollbars, etc.) and also just to give your content a little breathing room. A commonly accepted standard width to use for web designs is 960 pixels, and I still stick with that.

This can sometimes cause some confusion for designers who are used to the fixed palette of a printed page. Your content can/should go all the way to the edges of that 960-pixel layout, and you still need to think about what comes outside of that area. So it’s good when you’re designing to think of foreground and background. Have an arbitrarily huge background canvas, with a 960-pixel-wide by whatever-pixel-tall box floating top-center over it, where your foreground content will go.

But I digress. We start with 960. That’s our maximum break point. (OK, if your audience is primarily looking at the site on 30-inch displays, you might want to consider an additional larger break point at 1200 or so.) Then we move down from there. I like to think of it like this:

Device/Screen Type

Screen Width

Content Width

#wrapper CSS

Large computer displays (optional)

1280 and up

1200

margin: 0 auto;
width: 1200px;

Computer/iPad (landscape)

1024

960

margin: 0 auto;
width: 960px;

iPad (portrait)

768

720

margin: 0 auto;
width: 720px;

Small tablets/phones

Varies

Fluid

margin: 0 auto;
width: 90%;

The “small tablets/phones” layouts typically collapse to a single column and are the only truly fluid layouts I use; the larger break points go to fixed widths, which makes for easier scaling of columnar content.

Note that I typically follow the convention of placing everything inside my <body> tags inside a <div id="wrapper"> tag, which allows me to apply CSS to the overall page body and separate CSS to the foreground content (what’s inside the “wrapper”).

Occasionally I will split “small tablets/phones” into two separate break points, with small tablets somewhere between 500 and 640 pixels. I may also change the content widths somewhat to suit the specifics of the design.

Mobile-First Sounds Great, but Let’s Be Honest: It’s Really IE8-First

Earlier in the year, Luke Wroblewski took the idea of RWD a step further with his inspired vision for Mobile-First web design. Initially I wholeheartedly embraced mobile-first, but I’ve since reconsidered.

What is mobile-first? It’s RWD, but instead of starting from the desktop layout and using CSS3 media queries to adjust the layout to smaller screens, it starts from the small screens and works its way up. The main benefit of this approach is that it allows you to prevent mobile devices from loading unnecessary assets (images, etc.) that they won’t actually use.

There’s a major downside to mobile-first, however, at least in my experience trying to implement it: there are still a lot of people using Internet Explorer 8 (and earlier), which does not support CSS3 media queries. So unless you create an IE-specific stylesheet (using conditional comments), IE8 and earlier users will be stuck with a strange variation on the phone version of your site.

So after building a few mobile-first RWD sites, I have abandoned that approach, and gone with what could be called an IE8-first approach. I am not really building to IE8. I work primarily on a Mac, and I preview my work in Chrome while I’m developing. But what I mean is I’ve gone back to that standard 1024×768 screen as the baseline for my CSS, with CSS3 media queries for the smaller screen sizes (as well as for print and high-resolution displays, the latter of which is next up).

Getting Retinal

Remember earlier when I said your designs should be in Illustrator rather than Photoshop? Here’s why: high resolution. Sure, you can change resolution in Photoshop too, but… wait, you’re not still slicing-and-dicing, are you? By working with discrete objects in Illustrator, resolution-independent and, when possible, vector-based, you have the maximum flexibility when you render these objects out as 24-bit PNGs with alpha channel transparency. (You are doing that too, right?)

Starting with the iPhone 4, Apple introduced the “Retina Display” which is their marketing term for, basically, screens with pixels too small for you to see. The goal is to achieve a level of resolution on an LCD screen that rivals print. The exact pixels-per-inch varies from screen to screen, and is not really too significant. The key point is that above a certain pixel density threshold, CSS treats all pixel-based measurements as pixel-doubled. As I noted above, although the current iPad screen resolution is 2048×1536, its effective pixel size in CSS is still 1024×768. There is a practical reason for this (if CSS stuck with the actual pixels, all web pages would appear absurdly tiny on such a screen). But there’s also a practical downside: most images on most web pages are now being scaled up in the browser to these pixel-doubled dimensions, resulting in a blurry appearance.

But here’s something really cool: you can specify the display dimensions of an image in CSS, and the browser will scale the image down on-the-fly. This has been the bane of many web developers’ existence for years, where people who didn’t know better would upload a very large, high resolution photo and scale it down in the page, resulting in ridiculous download times as the image slowly drew in on the page.

Used effectively, however, this characteristic provides an extremely easy way to make images high-resolution on displays that support it. By using CSS to scale the dimensions of an image to 1/2 its actual pixel size, the image will display in full resolution on screens that support this.

Of course, doubled dimensions mean quadrupled pixels, and depending on the details of JPEG or PNG compression, the high-resolution images may be more than four times the file size of their standard-resolution equivalents. So it’s nice to, again, use CSS3 media queries to only deliver these high-resolution replacement images to screens that can display them properly. (This will be demonstrated in the full example code below.)

You Say Graceful Degradation, I Say Progressive Enhancement

The matter of graceful degradation and/or progressive enhancement (depending on how you look at it) is tangential to RWD, but it’s something you’re likely to be dealing with as you build a responsive website.

Not all browsers support all CSS3 capabilities, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use them. I’m especially fond of box-shadow and border-radius, and in working with RWD you’ll probably get quite familiar with background-size as well. Remember that most of these newer capabilities will probably need to include vendor prefixes (like -moz- and -webkit-) as well. It’s cumbersome, and will probably be as painful to clean up as <blink> tags in a few years, but for now it’s the way to get things done.

The biggest challenge with progressive enhancement may well be convincing site stakeholders that it’s OK for the site to look (subtly) different in different browsers. Then again, if you’re doing RWD, that should be a given.

So, What Does This Actually Look Like?

As I’ve iterated my RWD approach this summer, I’ve inched closer and closer to a standard template I can use to start a new website. I feel it’s not quite there yet, but my basic CSS file structure is standardized enough that I can share it here. In a subsequent post, I hope to provide a zip download containing a full template file set for creating a new responsive website.

Here’s a rough example of what my typical CSS file looks like. Again, personal preferences dominate here: I like to write my CSS from scratch, and I typically organize it into three sections: standard HTML (basic tags), CSS classes (anything starting with a period), and DOM elements (anything starting with a hash mark).

The idea is that we’re going from general to specific. Within the standard HTML and CSS classes I alphabetize everything, so it’s easier to find things to change them as I go. Within the DOM elements I try to keep everything in the order it actually appears in the HTML structure. (I also alphabetize the properties within each element definition… but that’s just because I’m anal retentive.)

/* HIGH-RESOLUTION DISPLAYS */
@media only screen and (-moz-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.5),
only screen and (-o-min-device-pixel-ratio: 3/2),
only screen and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1.5),
only screen and (min-devicepixel-ratio: 1.5),
only screen and (min-resolution: 1.5dppx)
{

#logo {
background-image: url('img/logo_x2.png');
}

}

The Test Suite

Of course, all of this work means nothing until we’ve seen what it actually looks like in the web browsers on these different devices. To that end, a decent test suite is essential.

One cool trick about RWD, which is not only useful to dazzle clients when pitching a RWD approach to their websites, but is also helpful for quick testing as you go, is that the responsive approach works simply by making your browser window smaller on a computer. So you can shrink the window down and approximate what the site will look like on a tablet or a phone without actually having one in your hand at all times.

But before you go live, you do need to test it for real on different devices, just like you need to test in different browsers. The table below shows my test suite. It’s not comprehensive, but it’s practical, and it all fits in one small messenger bag.

Give Me Something I Can Print!

You may have noticed in the full example CSS above that I included CSS3 media queries for print. The need for decent print output will vary by project — different sites’ audiences may be more or less inclined to print out pages. In general I think of printing out web pages a bit like I think about… well, honestly, I can’t even think of a good analogy. You just shouldn’t do it. But sometimes it has to happen. I won’t be exploring the infuriating nuances of print CSS here, other than to say that if you do need to support printing, the code provided in this sample is a good place to start. (Sadly, although I use it regularly, I neglected to make note of its source. If you know where it’s from, please let me know in the comments.)

Where Do We Go Now?

OK Axl, hang on. I know I’ve dumped a lot on you here to think about, without necessarily providing enough specifics. But that’s kind of the point: in order to do this right, you really need to learn it for yourself and gain the experience of building RWD sites directly. This is what has been working for me but my approach is certainly neither the only nor the best way, I’m sure.

My hope is to follow up this post with a “Part Two” entry this time around, where I get into more of the specifics of an actual example website. In the meantime, experiment and discover! And be sure to check out the entire A Book Apart series, as they provide the conceptual and detailed knowledge needed to get started with this exciting new approach to web design.

I just had a look at my Google Analytics stats for this site. I made some interesting observations.

First, I saw iOS, iPhone and iPad showing up as separate devices. I wondered if iOS was a composite of both, but I realized Google was actually counting them separately. Looking at the daily stats it was clear that they made this switch on May 29, where before that date iPhone and iPad were being reported, and afterward it was just iOS. I’m not sure why they did that, but I am sure there was a very deliberate reason behind it.

Anyway, uncovering this switch was not relevant to my data observations, so I changed the date range to only encompass dates after the switch, June 1 to 20.

Here’s what I found:

True, I am a Mac user, and have for a long time favored Safari (although I recently switched my default browser to Chrome). But I don’t really spend that much time admiring my own work here on the blog. (Yes… not that much time.) So I don’t think my own activity skews the data here too much.

Do I then think this reflects the Internet as a whole? Absolutely not. I’ve learned over time that most of the people visiting my blog are stumbling upon specific posts based on a Google search, and these are almost always posts that are about diagnosing and fixing particular Mac-related problems. So, Safari’s dominance is logical (especially if Mobile Safari for iOS is lumped in here, which I have to assume is the case).

It’s nice to see Internet Explorer under 10%. And that’s all versions of Internet Explorer. But… what the heck is RockMelt? Yes, I am asking the two of you who use it.

Yes, even despite my blatant and unrepentant Apple bias, Windows still slightly edges out Mac in the stats. Interesting, then, that Safari is the most popular browser, since I suspect there are even fewer Windows Safari users than there are RockMelt users. But of course, we’re back to iOS. If you combine Mac and iOS, the total is well above that for Windows, and explains Safari’s #1 spot on the browser list.

Among mobile operating systems, iOS demonstrates a Windows-in-the-late-’90s level dominance. This despite the fact that Android famously holds greater market share in the US. Yes, my content will naturally skew my stats Apple-ward, but this data also, I think, reinforces the idea that iOS users actually use the web a lot more than Android users do.

BlackBerry and Nokia… how cute. Where’s Windows Phone?

And finally, we have mobile screen resolution. Now that Google doesn’t separate iPhone and iPad anymore, this is pretty much the way to distinguish between them in the stats. These resolutions are not the actual resolution of the screens but the pixel-doubled effective resolution used in the web browsers on Retina Display devices. 320×480 is the iPhone (even though the iPhone 4 and 4S have 640×960 screens), and 768×1024 is the iPad (even though the new iPad has a 1536×2048 display).

0x0? Really?

What I think is most significant here though is not the iPhone/iPad split at all, interesting as it is. It’s the fact that once you get past those, there’s no standard whatsoever on Android. That’s something to remember for those of us working on Responsive Web Design.